Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 776
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Tapas Sinha S/o Tonu Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 3333 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2026
For the Appellants : H.K. Das, D. Mahanta, N.K. Sarma
For the Respondent: D Bora
Disciplinary proceedings must rely on admissible evidence; findings predicated on hearsay, unexhibited documents, or the conclusions of an incomplete criminal investigation are unsustainable and violate the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Departmental Inquiry - Evidence - Standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability, yet findings must be rooted in admissible evidence. Hearsay evidence is insufficient to sustain disciplinary charges. Findings not supported by materials formally brought on record during the inquiry cannot be accepted. (Paras 11, 15, 20)
(B) Evidence - Criminal Investigation - Materials collected during a criminal investigation, such as witness statements before the filing of a charge-sheet, do not constitute conclusive evidence in a departmental proceeding. Reliance on such materials without independent proof is insufficient to establish misconduct. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
A government servant was dismissed from service following a departmental proceeding based on allegations of manipulating recruitment results to benefit a family member. The disciplinary inquiry relied heavily on hearsay evidence and initial investigation materials from a concurrent criminal case. The servant challenged the dismissal, asserting that the inquiry lacked admissible evidence and that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the lack of proof regarding the alleged manipulation.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the core evidence relied upon by the inquiring authority was hearsay and that crucial documents, such as recording footage, were never properly exhibited or provided to the petitioner. Furthermore, the findings were based on the conclusion of a criminal investigation rather than independent departmental proof. Consequently, the findings were deemed without basis.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary findings were supported by admissible evidence and whether the order of dismissal based on such findings is sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary authorities must base their conclusions on admissible evidence rather than hearsay, conjecture, or material derived solely from pending criminal investigations. Where an inquiry report relies on unsubstantiated statements and fails to exhibit critical evidence, the penalty imposed based thereon is perverse and cannot be sustained.
Result: Petition allowed. Impugned dismissal order set aside. Respondent authorities directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for departmental disciplinary proceedings and grounds for suspension. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 14) |
| 2. evidentiary standards in departmental enquiries, parity of punishment, and witness credibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. admissibility of hearsay, failure to exhibit key evidence, and reliance on inconclusive criminal investigations in departmental proceedings. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. reinstatement and entitlement to back-wages upon setting aside of an unsustainable penalty order. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. H K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Bora, Learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents.
2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge, to an order dated 17.01.2024, issued by the Director General of Police, Assam, as the Disciplinary Authority, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, instituted against him.
3. The petitioner, herein, while working as an Inspector (Armed Battalion), attached to the Karimganj Police Reserve, was deployed as the Overall In-Charge of the venue, wherein, the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), in connection with a recruitment exercise, underway, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 25.04.2018, issued for recruitment of 5494 (Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four) Constables (Unarmed Branch/ Armed Branch) in Assam Police, for the year 2018, was being so conducted. The son of the petitioner Sri. Shibam Sinha, was one of the candidates in the said recruitment process. The application, submitted by the son of the petitioner, in pursuance to the said advertisement, being found to be in order, he was issued with an Admit Card, requiring him to appear at the Venue for participating in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) segment of the said recruitment process. The Physical Efficiency Test (PET) segment of the selection process included a race and long jump. The male candidates in the race, were subjected to a 3.2 km race, which was mandated to be completed within 14 (fourteen) minutes and the same was to carry 20 marks. The said Physical Efficiency Test (PET) was conducted under CCTV surveillance and by using RFID Chip and each candidate was required to affix a RFID Chip in their body, which would count their accurate timing, as well the laps as completed by them, which was further monitored by CCTV surveillance. The son of the petitioner, on 10.09.2021, along with other candidates, which also included wards of other police personnel deployed in the district of Karimganj, participated in the said recruitment exercise. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, as noticed hereinabove, was deployed as an Observer. The petitioner, being anxious to learn about the performance of his son, had monitored his performance during the early stages of the race, however, finding that the son of the petitioner was performing well in the race, he had left the place. It is also projected that the petitioner had once gone to the temporary shed, erected for InfoClab Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which Company was involved in the selection process, for taking rest as it was a hot and sunny day, and there was no other place, wherein, some shade was available.
4. After the said race was over, one candidate Sri. Bharat Dusad, lodged a complaint with the authorities leveling allegations of anomalies in the final results of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) segment of the Recruitment process. The complaint was to the effect that candidates who did not complete the race within 14 (Fourteen) minutes and had also not completed 10 (ten) laps, were shown to be selected. The said complaint was examined by the District Level Selection Committee. The Committee, on checking the CCTV footage of the race, had confirmed the anomalies pertaining to timing, in respect of the 3 (three) candidates, includ
